Is the purpose of sex both Unitive AND Procreative

[Guest Aluigi]

"we showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law (Canon 1013). Not long afterwards, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it." -Pope Pius XII March 10, 1944

[Guest Aluigi]

John Paul II
[quote]It is precisely by moving from "an integral vision of man and of his vocation, not only his natural and earthly, but also his supernatural and eternal vocation,"(87) that Paul VI affirmed that the teaching of the Church "is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning."(88) And he concluded by re-emphasizing that there must be excluded as intrinsically immoral "every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible."(89)[/quote]
[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html"]FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO[/url]

In saying that they are inseperable, it does not appear to be denying one being primary and the other secondary.

if anyone can provide info from Vatican II teaching that they are EQUAL purposes to substantiate the assertion of traditionalist site I found the Canon Law and Pius XII thing on please provide it to further show if Vatican II is in fact in opposition. if all it says is that they are inseperable, I don't think they are in opposition.

so what if we shifted this to ask a more dynamic question about the topic. state an answer to these questions to assert your stance

is the procreative purpose primary?
are both purposes inseperable? if not, what previous Church Teaching says they're not?
is the unitive purpose solely accidental? if so, what previous Church Teaching says so?

Edited November 26, 2004 by Aluigi

[God Conquers]

Here's an interesting quote from Tertullian. I believe he is speaking to a unitive end in the sexual act, not as an accident, but as an end unto itself:

, "The two shall be (joined) into one flesh"[6] of the Church and Christ, according to the spiritual nuptials of the Church and Christ (for Christ is one, and one is His Church), we are bound to recognise a duplication and additional enforcement for us of the law of unity of marriage, not only in accordance with the foundation of our race, but in accordance with the sacrament of Christ. From one marriage do we derive our origin in each case; carnally in Adam, spiritually in Christ. The two births combine in laying down one prescriptive rule of monogamy.”

It's from his "Exhortation to Chastity".

[Dave]

Ya know, for all this talk about whether or not the Church always taught that sex is unitive AND procreative, we still need to remember that doctrine has developed over time. Over the centuries the Church comes to gain new insights into its teachings, but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant. Even if the Church didn't recognize a unitive aspect to sex at first, recognizing it later on would NOT be contrary to what the Church had previously taught.

But for the record, I voted yes to the poll.

[Guest Aluigi]

but the fact is the Church has always recognized both as purposes. this isn't a developement issue, because it's always been taught thusly.

[Dave]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 26 2004, 03:06 PM'] but the fact is the Church has always recognized both as purposes. this isn't a developement issue, because it's always been taught thusly. [/quote]
Yes, Al, I realize that. But I said what I did for the sake of those who claim that the Church didn't always teach both aspects.

[Guest Aluigi]

they claim not only that it wasn't taught, but that the Church taught it the purpose was solely procreative, in which case there would be no room for developement. However, both procreation and union have always been taught as purposes, procreative being primary and union being secondary, while pleasure is accidental.

[God Conquers]

hmmmm, less argument than I thought.....


The Irish Penitentials starting in the 7th and 8th centuries and all summa and penitentials from thenceforth also ahow a propensity for the unitive aspect of marriage.

For example, sexual relations [i]in retro[/i] is penanced very harshly, but for seemingly no reason. It does not prevent procreation like secual relations [i]in tergo[/i].
It would seem the only real reason for such a restriction is because it devalues the unitive end of the sexual act.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Nov 25 2004, 04:46 PM'] The unitive role of the marital act has been explained by the Church in the past (I believe), but this has not been taught from the beginning I do not think. At best, the unitive role of the marital act has been explained simply as an accident of the end, namely procreation. The unitive role has not been taught as an end in itself (until recently). This is not an orthodox Catholic belief. At best, the unitive role is simply an accident of the act, not an end in itself. I think I remember reading something in the Roman Catechism that explains the unitive role in the marital act, but it was certainly not said to be an end in itself (but I am even unsure of whether or not the Roman Catechism mentions anything about the unitive role at all). Please explain if you answer positively (by finding any Church Father, Doctor, or Council that taught this). Thanks. [/quote]
Actually, God taught both. Scripture taught both. They just weren't definitively taught as equal.

[SirMyztiq]

Please sex if nothing more than natures way of creating more of us.

We just attatched some symbolism to it.

[cmotherofpirl]

My tomcat would agree with that. but he is only out for one thing.

Humans have always seen sex as a sacred thing.

[qfnol31]

The difference between you and your cat is your body holds Transcendent Truth. Your cat does not.

[cmotherofpirl]

Yep.

My tomcat follows natures way. But we are more than just biology, we are children of God.

[amarkich]

I will submit that if the unitive aspect is an end in itself, then it is inseperable from the procreative aspect and that the two are not equal. I do not think there is anything wrong with that belief, but when we get into things like NFP, that is where the unitive and procreative aspects are split in order to prevent pregnancy. That is the biggest issue for me.

[cmotherofpirl]

When you are practicing NFP you are simply refraining from making love when there is the greatest possibility of a child.
You are still unified and can still procreate if God so chooses.

[amarkich]

From what I was taught about NFP, it is 99% effective in not producing children (if the couple wants this). This is still birth control; it is just a natural means. Sin is in the intent (the act, too, but in the intent foremost). If a couple charts and plans the woman's cycle (or whatever determines this, sorry I do not know exactly how it works), and then intentionally uses this information to control birth, how is that not sinful? There are times when it is impossible to produce children, right? To deliberately only perform the marital act during these times is removing the procreative aspect completely. Contraception still leaves an option to have children, too, because it is only 95% effective (if that).

[Socrates]

NFP is not the same thing as contraception.
NFP involves abstaining from sex during certain times.
Contraception involves performing a sexual act while actively doing something to frustrate conception.
Abstaining from sex is not a sinful act.

Birth control and contraception are not necessarily the same thing.

The Church has endorsed NFP, while she has always (and continues to) oppose contraception.

[Don John of Austria]

amarkich-- NFP requires nothing but abstance from sex. Abstance is not in and of itself wrong, therefore sex is not misused in anyway, thusly NFP is not sinful. Artifical contraception involves the use of unnatural additions to the sex act( either drugs or equipment) which intentionally interfere with the Procreative nature of the act, perverting it. Thus the sanctity of sex is violated and the act is sinful. NFP is open to life in each sexual act that actually occurs obviously this is not true if one is artfically interfering with procreation there is a very large differance.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 29 2004, 12:44 PM'] When you are practicing NFP you are simply refraining from making love when there is the greatest possibility of a child. 
You are still unified and can still procreate if God so chooses. [/quote]
That's kind of a loose argument though. If God so chooses, a person could get pregnant while on the Pill, or without even having sex for that matter (as has happened before).

[quote]Abstance is not in and of itself wrong, therefore sex is not misused in anyway, thusly NFP is not sinful.[/quote]

I would agree that abstinence is not a sin, but I don't think the rest follows, because part of every act of man is intention. While abstaining in and of itself is no sin, can the same be said when the intention of abstaining during fertile periods and engaging in the marital act only when the women is infertile is to not have children. How is that different from a contraceptive mentality, which basically says "I want sex, but I don't want to have kids right now so I will have sex only when I (or my spouse) cannot get pregnant".

Let me up the ante some. Science continues to progress in its knowledge of reproduction and fertlity. 50 years ago, the rhythm method was all there was, which was itself progress from virtually no concept of fertile periods. With each progression, accuracy in pinpointing the fertile period increases. We are now at 99%. Does the acceptablility of NFP, or the idea that by using it you are still open to life, rely upon human failure to be exact or precise in monitoring fertlity? What happens when the next step is taken and NFP is 100% accurate? Can you still be said to be open to life when you are only engaging in the marital act when you know that you are absolutely infertile and there is NO chance of conception?

Edited November 29, 2004 by popestpiusx

[Socrates]

The contraceptive act (having sexual relations while deliberating doing something to impede conception) is what is sinful, not the fact that someone is limiting the amount of children he is having.

Again, NFP involves abstainance, which is not a sin.

Actively frustrating the procreative ability of the sexual act is what is sinful.

Are an elderly couple in which the woman is well beyond child-bearing age making love sinful?
Is it required that a married couple have sex whenever the woman is fertile?

The Church has not condemned NFP. You would do well to accept her wisdom, and not condemn others who disagree with your opinions.